Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has decided to sacrifice his valuable Sunday morning (pre-football) quiet time (while Mrs. Villain and the Villainettes are out of the Villainous Compound) to re-read the comments concerning his gay marriage post and finalize a response. Allow me to say that all of the comments on my original post, when transferred to MS-Word, fill 23 pages. (Viewed in 11pt. Book Antiqua Font. BTW, Book Antiqua is the official Font of the MWO.) That is a lot of reading. Also, the volume of words written by the Big Hominid (The Poet Laureate of the MWO) and the Minister of Agriculture (obviously one of people slated to take an executive position in the MWO) preclude (in my opinion) Fisking their responses. As much as I might like to Fisk in this instance, I really have to write an original post. Albeit an original post containing lots of block quotes.

So, that said, allow you Maximum Leader to dive right in‚ÄövѬ

My good friends (and one reader of the Big Hominid‚ÄövÑv¥s site) do not warm up to my assertion that reason is a destructive faculty. Indeed the Big Hominid writes:

There is, to my mind, an enormous difference between declaring that reason is a destructive faculty, and merely that it can be so. As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing inherently destructive about reason (”inherent destructiveness” is a stand taken by many postmodernists who view reason– or “rationality”– through a consequentialist lens and deem it the primary cause of the so-called “death event” that was the 20th century). Reason is merely a tool, and when the Maximum Leader introduces that auxiliary verb “can” into his argument, he’s acknowledging this.

The Minister of Agriculture also objects to this assertion. He writes:

I am alarmed at my friend the Maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s attack on reason. I think he is missing the point of the founding fathers. They were not rejecting reason and would not have seen reason and tradition as being in conflict. They were simply using traditional practices and experience to inform their reason ‚ÄövÑv¨ ‚ÄövÑv this works‚ÄövÑvp and ‚ÄövÑv this doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t.‚ÄövÑvp Reason is informed by tradition. Furthermore, the Maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s examples that purport to show the destructive action of reason actually show the problems that arise from poor reasoning. I agree that there are many pie-in-the-sky ‚ÄövÑv rational‚ÄövÑvp theorists who arrive at ridiculous positions when they discard tradition. But their problem isn‚ÄövÑv¥t that they have fine reasoning and a poor grasp of tradition. Their problem is that their reasoning is poor because they fail to integrate experience into their thought process.

Why is the Maximum Leader, a child of the Enlightenment, suddenly turning on lady reason? Does the Maximum Leader suspect that at some level his argument does not hold up to rational scrutiny? Rather than deny the utility of reason, I would humbly suggest that his acknowledgement of this suspicion should lead to a reappraisal of his position.

My point obviously needs some refinement. Allow your Maximum Leader to start refining. First to address the M of A, as a Hobbesian I am pre-Enlightenment in many respects. Be that as it may‚ÄövѬ

I will continue to maintain that reason alone, outside of science and mathematics, is a destructive faculty. This is to say that in the sphere of civil/political society reason is imbued with a mainly destructive impulse. Reason is deployed, primarily, as the basis for the overthrow of tradition. Very few, if any, traditions will survive a completely rational examination. In this way, I do not believe I am missing the point of the Founders. When they said ‚ÄövÑv this works‚ÄövÑvp and ‚ÄövÑv that doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t‚ÄövÑvp they were tempering rationality in favor of tradition. Civilization is maintained not by reason, but by tradition.

To this point the Big Hominid writes:

When he writes, “It is custom and tradition that provide continuity to civilization and prevent us from sliding into the abyss of barbarity at any moment,” I’m with him until the alarmist ending of that sentence. Sociologist Peter Berger used the Greek term nomos (law) to refer to the social order embodied in tradition, an order that in many ways appears to assume an objective reality. Berger contends that “objectification” is one of the steps we go through as we become more and more inculturated into our society: we come to accept that “society” and “the law(s)” all exist in some real sense outside our heads. Because these notions become objectified, they do indeed carry weight and momentum‚ÄövѬ .

The Big Hominid continues:

And social order, whether we call it tradition or something else, has its salubrious aspect. Far be it from me to deny tradition’s significance. But let it be known that traditions have beginnings; they come from somewhere, are made before they are passed on, and in the final analysis, traditions– and the larger nomos– reside in the mind. My metaphysical point is the same as it always is: we’re talking about frangible, dynamic, impermanent realities. While tradition and law are important for the structure they provide to the system, that same system also requires dynamism to stay viable. An alarmist viewpoint that equates dynamism with collapse does not, in my opinion, contribute constructively to society. I advocate the abandonment of such alarmism in favor of a more balanced view of order and chaos (what process theologians politely call “novelty”).

This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against my position. I agree that society does need dynamism to remain viable. The position I advocate is one of gradual change where the benefit to society will be clear. I do not believe that gay marriage will clearly benefit society. Will it benefit gays? Of course. Am I afraid that a small percentage of a small percentage of people (the gay community) getting married will completely and immediately overthrow society? No. I will grant you that it will not completely and immediately overthrow the existing social order. But by removing this traditional taboo (members of the same sex getting married) from society one makes it even more difficult to maintain the taboos that remain; because there becomes less and less reason to maintain taboos. (More on this later‚ÄövѬ )

Inculturation of ‚ÄövÑv the laws‚ÄövÑvp and ‚ÄövÑv tradition‚ÄövÑvp in people is only as strong as the ability of people to be willing to uphold even irrational traditions. As the Big Hominid points out, traditions have beginnings. These beginnings are just as often irrational as they are rational. Regardless, traditions are made and passed on. I say that reasoned examination of tradition is deployed be people who want change the tradition. For example, why do various religious traditions prohibit the eating of shellfish? Probably because at the time of the first prohibition there was a food preparation issue that could cause shellfish be fatal. Is there a rational reason to continue this dietary restriction? No. Should you overthrow the shellfish restriction? That is the crux of the matter‚ÄövѬ

The use of reason alone to overthrow tradition was the core (perhaps not articulated clearly enough) of my equality argument. Once you start down the path of ‚ÄövÑv Point A is completely rational and reasonable and no reasonable, rational person should object to it;‚ÄövÑvp you don‚ÄövÑv¥t leave much room for experience and tradition. Indeed, when arguments are worded in this way one starts to sound particularly shrill. (More on shrill later‚ÄövѬ ) To re-word, ‚ÄövÑv Equality among all people is a completely rational and reasonable idea; and no reasonable, rational person can object to it.‚ÄövÑvp My point it that it depends on what ‚ÄövÑv equality‚ÄövÑvp is. The way I would define equality is highly dependent on my historical understanding of the term. It is my contention that the historical understanding of the term equality is being overthrown, to the detriment of society.

I cited some examples in my original post which the M of A says are not examples of reason as being destructive, but show instead poor reasoning. Then he ends his paragraph by saying that their reasoning is poor because they fail to integrate experience into their reasoning. This is my whole point. My arguments were essentially sound from a logical standpoint. The M of A objects to the premises. While I know that objection to the premises is the heart of logical debate, our problem is that those who advance the reasoned argument against the traditional argument have to start with the completely rational premise. This is what I believe many people involved in this debate are doing divorcing tradition (historical experience) from their rational process.

Allow me to introduce what I will now describe as the ‚ÄövÑv John Cleese Argument.‚ÄövÑvp It is essentially the reductio ad absurdum philosophical tactic. I call it the ‚ÄövÑv John Cleese Argument‚ÄövÑvp because its genesis comes from an old interview with John Cleese by the BBC. (Which I have spent about 45 mins trying to find on the internet. Can‚ÄövÑv¥t find the link anywhere. If any of you find it, please send it on to me.) Cleese was asked by the Beeb interviewer if being a lawyer was important to his comedy. He said it was essential. One of the outcomes of a legal education was being able to take an argument to an extreme to make a legal point. If you apply this technique to a non-legal situation, you can get comedy. For example, take the Black Knight in the Holy Grail movie. You start off positing that the Knight would defend the bridge until death. Now start the reductio ad absurdum. If you cut off his arms what would he do? He would kick you. If you cut off his legs what would he do? He would try to bite you. And so on. The sequence is funny because of its absurdity. Unfortunately, we do not apply this technique often enough in civil life.

Why is this approach not used enough in civil/political life? The reason is that in some respects this approach is similar to the slippery slope argument. The problem with using the slippery slope argument in civil/political life is that one side denies that the end point of the slope is what they are arguing for. Take the gun control debate. (Which I believe is the only political debate in the US that does regularly use the reductio ad absurdum defence.) Those in favor of gun control say that their desire is to sensibly regulate guns and ammunition. Those against gun control say that the ultimate goal of the other side is to confiscate guns and make private ownership illegal. Because of this there is not a lot of room to compromise between the two sides.

To continue to use gun control as an analogy‚ÄövѬ The former Handgun Control, Inc side says, ‚ÄövÑv We want to require that trigger locks are sold with handguns and that if owners do not use the locks they will be criminally prosecuted.‚ÄövÑvp Why do the people at the former Handgun Control, Inc want to do this? The reason is simple, they want to reduce handgun violence and deaths. So what does the NRA (the other side) say? They object to the trigger lock proposal because it leads to outlawing private ownership of handguns.

So the argument concerning handguns unfolds thusly. The Handgun Control people say who could be against reasonable, rational, gun control? The NRA says ‚ÄövÑv We are against what you call reasonable, rational, gun control because of the end to which it leads.‚ÄövÑvp Why take this approach? Because once you cross the first ‚ÄövÑv reasonable, rational‚ÄövÑvp barrier you inevitably weaken all of the other ‚ÄövÑv reasonable, rational‚ÄövÑvp barriers. Once you get societal buy-in to ‚ÄövÑv we must reduce handgun violence through trigger locks‚ÄövÑvp you are not far at all rationally from ‚ÄövÑv we must reduce handgun violence through eliminating private ownership of handguns.‚ÄövÑvp

Ultimately, the NRA position boils down to our written Constitution as the embodiment of American tradition. The NRA‚ÄövÑv¥s (drastically oversimplified) point is that we‚ÄövÑv¥ve never prohibited handgun ownership. You can argue this point a dozen ways, but essentially it comes down to ‚ÄövÑv this is the way it has always been, and that is good enough.‚ÄövÑvp

So, let me start to refocus the argument back to gay marriage‚ÄövѬ

Put simply, my position is that I prefer the existing situation to change. (That much is clear.) To which the M of A says, rather shrilly:

I would once, just once, like to see an honest conservative get up and say that ‚ÄövÑv homosexuality is wrong and practitioners of this vice should suffer societal disapprobation and LEGAL PENALTIES.‚ÄövÑvp

By accepting the existing social order, I am supporting the continuation of societal disapprobation and legal penalties. Does that admission advance or otherwise assist the M of A‚ÄövÑv¥s side of this discussion? The shrill tone of the M of A doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t faze me the way it would faze the various talking heads on TV and in the political sphere. I recognize that the bedrock of civilization is the notion that there are boundaries to behavior. Those boundaries are often codified in law. I will gladly support the ones that I believe have well served us up to this point.

The underlying element of the M of A‚ÄövÑv¥s point is that we should believe in equal application of the law. The M of A writes:

Society discriminates against gays in a legal fashion. As a conservative, I would expect the Maximum Leader to rail against the unequal application of laws. All citizens should be equal before the laws. And no, my friend with the clinically diagnosed case of megalomania, I am not traipsing down the slippery slope of equal outcomes. I believe the government has an obligation to provide a level playing field. If, after having a level playing field, you fail to reach the standard of living you desire, my response is to suck it up and work harder. Gays in this country do NOT have a level playing field and are not asking for equal outcomes; only equal opportunity. The perniciousness of equal outcome mentality is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I believe the M of A is completely wrong on this point. (And furthermore, he is going down the slippery slope.) As a conservative I do seek the equal application of laws. What he is asking for is not equal application. What the M of A is asking for is a dramatic reinterpretation of the application of the laws in a way that was never intended. He is implying that marriage is a basic right of all people (regardless of sexual orientation) and thus there can be no rational reason to object to same sex marriage. This implication is close to basic civil right notion that was introduced by the Big Hominid. I say that the right to get married, like all rights, are the creation of the state and the civilization that the state is a part of. We can go on and on talking about the abstract right of marriage. My point is that marriage, until recently, was always a relationship into which a man and a woman entered.

The Big Hominid writes (and I will Fisk a little):
The reality of marriage is a human reality, not something inscribed in the cosmos. Marriage is as we define it, and to say it’s rooted in biology/family is simply to define it in terms of biology/family. This is human arbitrariness which gains momentum as tradition. No cosmic imperatives enter the discussion.

I agree at this point. I am not trying to make a case for a cosmic imperative. I am standing up for tradition. However the Big Hominid will quickly try to dissemble that tradition‚ÄövѬ

To anticipate the typically dualistic response at this point: “So you’re saying marriage can be defined any old way, irrespective of tradition, history, and the fact that the traditional definiton does imply biological reality, etc.?”

This cannot be stressed enough: when the nondualist notes the lack of essence in a term, concept, argument, or position, he is not therefore arguing that the term, concept, etc. has no value at all, nor that it should simply be ignored in favor of a “let’s do whatever we want” style of living. The same “leap to extremes” tendency that produces the “hell in a handbasket” argument is operative when the dualist asks this question, because he assumes my position, like his, must oscillate between the stark black-and-white of P and not-P. Unable to see past his own dualism, he is often compelled to view situations in terms of their extremes.

So I would never argue that marriage should mean… just anything. When I acknowledge along with Sullivan that the reality behind the term “marriage” is always moving, I am not therefore implying that we can/should start marrying our livestock (to use a Scottish example… cough). If anything, I’m being a realist: the term “marriage” is in fact applied to a rather wide variety of scenarios already (including homosexual marriage, since plenty of gays have already gotten married!). Do you consider mass weddings in the Moonie Church to be “real” marriages? No? Well, too bad: they’re called marriages, anyway. To argue specifically against gay-inclusive definitions of marriage is a high-handed attempt to legislate meaning.

Alas my friend, you are trying an equally high-handed attempt to change the traditionally understood legal meaning of the term marriage. By saying that there is no cosmic imperative behind the term we are free to alter or modify the arbitrary meaning of the word. This is what I disagree with. Have we gotten to the point where we need divine intervention to fix the definition of a word? I recognize that plenty of homosexuals have already gotten married. Without the support of the state and its laws those ceremonies don‚ÄövÑv¥t amount to much. I have already held a coronation ceremony in which I have crowed myself Maximum Leader and Emperor of the World. The very fact that I have had a ceremony doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t grant legal status (not yet at least) to my Maximum Leader status. We can dance all we want about the semantics here, but the term marriage has a specific and clear historical and legal meaning. It has been used to describe the legal relationship between a man and a woman. By asserting that the term is now applied in different situations now, thus the meaning has changed doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t advance your argument for legal recognition of gay marriage.

Never in the course of human history (at least to my rather broad knowledge of human history) has marriage ever been construed to include the relationship of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Thus, if marriage is a right it is one that is guaranteed only to men and women. I am not denying equal application of the laws, because the laws themselves were never intended to be interpreted in the way that the M of A or the Big Hominid ask.

I grant you that gays do not have equal opportunity in the case of marriage. I realize that this is what they are asking for. The argument is that if you have two loving people willing to enter into a legally binding (and state sanctioned) matrimonial relationship they should be allowed to regardless of their sex. My point is where does it end? Should we allow a 45-year-old man to marry a 10-year-old boy? If they love each other and are voluntarily entering into marriage why object? You might say we could object on the basis of the 10-year-old being too young. Why? Aren‚ÄövÑv¥t current Age of Consent laws based solely on irrational and arbitrary age definitions? (Just like the voting age being irrational and arbitrary.) If you could prove to an official of the state that the 10-year old was mentally competent to make a decision to get married would you let him? What if the boy was 13 (the Age of Consent in some states) and had his parents approval to get married? Would it be okay then? To answer my question, where does it end? It doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t end. Because, in time, there will be no rational reason to object to any behavior, except that it infringes on the rights of another. And even that objection could be made tenuous, which is my next point.

Lets throw in the whole genetic disposition argument.

The Big Hominid writes:

Further, Sullivan is probably right that gays represent a “permanent minority,” with his stress on “permanent” and my stress on “minority.” Modern science is leaning heavily toward the idea that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and if you subscribe to evolutionary theory and grant that homosexual behavior has been occurring in life forms on “less developed” branches of the evolutionary tree, there is no justification for the irrational belief that homosexuality is a perversion, a disorder, or even a choice (save in a few cases).

The M of A writes:
1) The Maximum Leader is simply wrong. There is little disagreement among researchers about the established influence of genetics in determining homosexual orientation - at least for men ‚ÄövÑv¨ as I understand it, lesbianism is generally considered to be more of a choice. I think Big Hominid does a nice job taking the Maximum Leader to the woodshed‚ÄövѬ

I disagree that there is ‚ÄövÑv little disagreement‚ÄövÑvp among researchers about the influence of genes on determining behavior. I think the Big Hominid is a little clearer in saying that researchers are ‚ÄövÑv leaning heavily.‚ÄövÑvp I think if you ask any genetic researcher they would be very wary of saying that a particular human behavior is directly related to a genetic trait. They may say there is a correlation (and if you read what the Big Hominid is linking to I don‚ÄövÑv¥t think it is quite as definitive as the M of A is asserting). Let me Fisk a moment more and then make a broader point‚ÄövѬ The M of A continues:

2) So what? Ignore the evidence for a moment and assume that homosexuality is a choice. Does the fact that an action between two consenting adults that has no victims result in thousands of instances of governmental discrimination? Would the Maximum Leader deny me the right to take over a lease because of my aforementioned youthful indiscretion?

I think your argument that there are no victims is false. I think that society can be victimized by the behavior of people within society. As to the question of my denying the M of A to take over a lease‚ÄövѬ The question is vague, and not germane. But as I understand it, he is asking me if he had chosen to live as though he were married (but not married) with a woman and she had died; would I allow him to take over the lease on an apartment to which he was not listed as a leasee? I might out of kindness. However, there is no legal reason why I should allow him to continue the lease. Frankly if he were living with a man (as though he were married) in said apartment my answer would be no different. The M of A goes on:

3) The Maximum Leader, if he is basing his support of discrimination on the grounds that homosexuality is a choice, should be prepared to change his position if the scientific community does demonstrate the biological origin of orientation. He does not seem prepared to do so. If he is prepared to change in the face of evidence that undermine his grounds, (I like that phrase!)

This is where I would like to make the broader point promised a little while ago. I am a little put out by the underlying premise of the ‚ÄövÑv my genes made me this way‚ÄövÑvp argument. I have no problem accepting the few physical conditions that have been more or less conclusively linked to a gene or series of genes (like Downs Syndrome). I do have a problem with accepting that specific human behavior is attributable to a gene or series of genes. The root cause of the problem is free will. If you are saying that my genetic disposition is to be a homosexual and thus you can‚ÄövÑv¥t hold it against me, are you also saying that if we find some other (perhaps insidious) human behavior linked to a gene that we can‚ÄövÑv¥t hold a person accountable for the other behavior? What about the strong correlation between persons with the XYY chromosomes and their propensity to violent behavior? Should a man with XYY chromosomes be excused for getting into a fight with another person? It was, after all, just his genes. He couldn‚ÄövÑv¥t help it. He is genetically programmed to be violent.

I am very uncomfortable excluding free will from human activity. If we are behaviorally programmed to behave in a particular way then what is the point trying to construct an ethical or moral system? Regardless of what system you might come up with, you have to just allow people to act according to their genetic instincts.

I am open to the discoveries of science. I would be willing to modify my opinions about a lot of things in the face of conclusive scientific proof. But, I don‚ÄövÑv¥t see how, with our current level of understanding, one can conclusively and demonstrably prove that human behavior is genetically programmed.

Well, I have gone way longer than I thought. I have used more than the time in the morning before football. Indeed, I have worked on this intermittently throughout the day. (Much to the distress of Mrs. Villain and the Villainettes. What time I have spent away from football today has been spent blogging.) I am sure I will need to revise and extend my remarks. But, I will leave the ball in the court of others for the moment.

Carry on my minions.

Well, the Maximum Leader can only shoot me once, so here goes:

The Washington Post today had an article that provides another illustration of official discrimination. This one perhaps might even influence Conservatives who purport to be ‚ÄövÑv 100% behind the troops.‚ÄövÑvp Does their ‚ÄövÑv 100% support of veterans‚ÄövÑvp need to be rewritten to ‚ÄövÑv 100% behind straight troops?‚ÄövÑvp

The full article, by Garance Burke, is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6680-2003Sep13.html

Here are some highlights:

According to a study by the Urban Institute released this summer, 1.3 million of the 25.1 million living veterans of U.S. wars are gay men or lesbians.

So this isn‚ÄövÑv¥t a small problem. Veterans of World II are dying. People tend to want to list their accomplishments on their headstone. Veteran. Father. Husband. Farmer. Teacher. Artist. Poet. But the U.S. government won‚ÄövÑv¥t let you mention other elements of your life:

The VA’s standing policy on appropriate headstone vocabulary was formulated more than a decade ago, when one veteran requested that the words “gay” and “proud” be inscribed on his headstone.

The crucial point to observe here is that the policy to limit did not exist UNTIL a gay man wanted to write his own tombstone. The policy was specifically created to deny a veteran the right to choose his own epitaph.

But wait, there‚ÄövÑv¥s more. It‚ÄövÑv¥s not just about the tombstone. It‚ÄövÑv¥s about the kind of memorial service a man‚ÄövÑv¥s family and friends can have:

Today, if decorated service members desire a full-honor military funeral at Arlington — which was modeled after Congressional Cemetery — they may make no reference to their domestic partners, even if they are their closest survivors.

If you want the military honors, you can‚ÄövÑvÂ¥t even make reference to your loved one during the service when no one but friends and family are around? One of the most touching moments of my Uncle‚ÄövÑvÂ¥s recent funeral was when the VFW commander passed the American flag to my aunt. If my aunt had been my ‚ÄövÑv uncle,‚ÄövÑvp the government would have prohibited giving him a place of honor at the graveside. This is not just legal discrimination. This is — and I choose my words carefully here ‚ÄövÑv¨ mean-spirited, rank horseshit. A man who took fire for his country, risking his life, can‚ÄövÑvÂ¥t even bequeath a flag to his partner. Horseshit, pure and simple.

‚ÄövÑv They can use personal inscriptions such as ‘beloved brother and son’ or ‘loving wife and mother,’ something that’s respectful and in good taste,” said Willie Alexander, spokesman for the VA, which decides protocol for headstones and memorials at Arlington. “The headstones or markers that carry any reference to sexual orientation will not be inscribed, because the headstone commemorates their service to country, and it is not a forum for a political statement.”

If it were just about political statements, the ban would not include the nature of the service. Why should being gay or mentioning your family situation be a political statement? I tell people about my wife and child all the time. I‚ÄövÑv¥m not making a political statement. It is only a political statement for gays because the bigots have made it one.

A side discussion with the MWO‚ÄövÑv¥s Poet Laureate tells me that I should polish the part of my earlier response that I missed cutting and pasting into my earlier post ‚ÄövÑv¨ my take on why gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage. However, the Redskins are on. More later.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader stumbled across this quiz. I don’t know what blogger directed me to it, which is to bad because I would provide a link to their post too. Anyway. According to the quiz, your Maximum Leader is a Neoconservative. Here is NeoCon defined:

Neoconservatives‚ÄövѬ

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

I encourage you all to take the quiz. See how the CS Monitor might classify you.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader did not get much of an opportunity to blog yesterday. And if he had, you might not have liked to tone of what I would say. Like Andrew Sullivan, I believe we should be more angry and our resolve should be strengthening. Our resolve that is to fight terrorists, bring down the regimes that support them, and help to create a more civilized world.

Your Maximum Leader was somewhat agog at many of the mealy-mouthed tributes to the 3,021 victims. There was very little righteous anger yesterday. I didn’t expect anger from many of the families. But I expected more from commentators. If you weren’t watching Fox news yesterday, you were being bludgeoned with platitudes and wallowing in unfocused (and paralyizing) grief.

And we always speak about the victims… Am I too out of step to say that I think of them as our glorious dead? I know that is an expression of an earlier time. And the 3,021 Americans that were brutally murdered were not soliders (the normal connotation for glorious dead). At least not soliders in the traditional sense. They were ordinary people living an ordinary American life. But for doing that, we are all a type of solider in a war that, as much as it pains us to say, is coming down to one that is a clash of civilizations.

And by the way, where were all the moderate muslims yesterday? I didn’t hear from them…

At any rate my loyal minions. Read Victor Davis Hanson on what we have accomplished. And remember that this is a long war. But it is one we must fight, and will win.

Carry on my minions.

Greetings loyal minions. It is a very very sad day my minions. Your Maximum Leader is struck with grief to learn that Johnny Cash as died. I have always considered Johnny Cash to be one of the greatest, if not The Greatest American Poet/Songwriter of our times. He was a presence in all music since the late 1950s. Discovered by Sam Phillips right after Elvis, Cash revolutionized Country music, and shaped the early sound of Rock and Roll. He lived a hard life. But many of the hardships were self-inflicted. Were it not for the love and constant care of his wife, the late June Carter Cash, he would have passed on many years ago. Indeed, I speculated when June Carter Cash died (four months ago) that Johnny would not be long of this world. News stories (here and here) report he died from complications of diabetes. Your Maximum Leader believes he died of a heart broken by the death of his loving wife. Johnny rest in peace, and know that the circle will be unbroken.

Carry on my minons.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been reading and re-reading the Gay Marriage post by Big Hominid, the Minister of Agriculture, and others. Alas, your Maximum Leader’s busy schedule (planning world domination and all - as well as helping the Villainettes and Mrs. Villain in the evenings) has not allowed him significant writing time. Let it be known that he has drawn up some notes and an outline, and hopes to post a substanive blog soon.

And your Maximum Leader would like to publicly thank the Minister of Agriculture for blogging. It is my sincere hope that all of us (your Maximum Leader, the Air Marshal, the Poet Laureate, and the M of Agriculture) will be able to create some interesting blogging on all of the subjects under the sun.

Carry on.

The Minister of Agriculture will reluctantly enter the field, but he does so with the sad knowledge that he is unlikely to influence anyone‚ÄövÑv¥s opinion on the matter through the use of reason ‚ÄövÑv¨ people seem to develop their position based on a gut reaction and build their ‚ÄövÑv reasoned‚ÄövÑvp defense from there.

REASON

I am alarmed at my friend the Maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s attack on reason. I think he is missing the point of the founding fathers. They were not rejecting reason and would not have seen reason and tradition as being in conflict. They were simply using traditional practices and experience to inform their reason ‚ÄövÑv¨ ‚ÄövÑv this works‚ÄövÑvp and ‚ÄövÑv this doesn‚ÄövÑv¥t.‚ÄövÑvp Reason is informed by tradition. Furthermore, the maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s examples that purport to show the destructive action of reason actually show the problems that arise from poor reasoning. I agree that there are many pie-in-the-sky ‚ÄövÑv rational‚ÄövÑvp theorists who arrive at ridiculous positions when they discard tradition. But their problem isn‚ÄövÑv¥t that they have fine reasoning and a poor grasp of tradition. Their problem is that their reasoning is poor because they fail to integrate experience into their thought process.

Why is the Maximum Leader, a child of the Enlightenment, suddenly turning on lady reason? Does the Maximum Leader suspect that at some level his argument does not hold up to rational scrutiny? Rather than deny the utility of reason, I would humbly suggest that his acknowledgement of this suspicion should lead to a reappraisal of his position.

The issue of attitudes toward homosexuality has been one that has divided the Maximum Leader and this humble tiller of the soil since our halcyon college years. We suspected a mutual friend played for the other team and began a fifteen year-long debate on whether that would or should affect our relationship with that friend. Now I could care less. Particularly in college, as long as your partner wasn‚ÄövÑv¥t annoying, I was glad to have them join the group. But the Leader was caught up in moral disapproval.

THE RIGHT TO MORAL DISAPPROVAL

Friends, if you haven‚ÄövÑv¥t deciphered this from his blog site, the Maximum Leader is not someone who hides his moral disapproval. Shockingly, even I, virtuous church mouse that I am, have felt the righteous wrath of the Leader. My sophomore year he refused social discourse with me for over a week to register his disapproval of a liaison I had contracted with a girl who was a senior in high school. At the time I was hurt. Fifteen years of gradually reducing levels of testosterone later, I am willing to concede that I was in error and that the Maximum Leader was indeed correct. We now laugh about the story with great heartiness. Or the Maximum Leader does. I laugh with rueful sheepishness.

But I digress.

Ah ‚ÄövÑv¨ yes ‚ÄövÑv¨ gay marriage. The point of this missive is not to challenge the Maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s right to his moral certitude. Everyone has the right to hold an opinion. It is to address ‚ÄövÑv¨ dare I say it? ‚ÄövÑv¨ the IMMORALITY of extending this moral feeling into the legal realm.

LEGAL DISCRIMINATION

My biggest frustration with the debate over gay marriage is the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-marriage forces. They go to great lengths to argue that they do not favor discrimination ‚ÄövÑv¨ even the Maximum Leader refers to his familial friendship with a gay man. But they refuse to acknowledge that the present system of laws that they defend IS DISCRIMINATORY. I would once, just once, like to see an honest conservative get up and say that ‚ÄövÑv homosexuality is wrong and practitioners of this vice should suffer societal disapprobation and LEGAL PENALTIES.‚ÄövÑvp

Society discriminates against gays in a legal fashion. As a conservative, I would expect the Maximum Leader to rail against the unequal application of laws. All citizens should be equal before the laws. And no, my friend with the clinically diagnosed case of megalomania, I am not traipsing down the slippery slope of equal outcomes. I believe the government has an obligation to provide a level playing field. If, after having a level playing field, you fail to reach the standard of living you desire, my response is to suck it up and work harder. Gays in this country do NOT have a level playing field and are not asking for equal outcomes; only equal opportunity. The perniciousness of equal outcome mentality is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

With apologies to Twain, if I was an idiot and did not make a will ‚ÄövÑv¨ but I repeat myself ‚ÄövÑv¨ and then died, my dear wife and daughter would inherit my (admittedly rather meager) estate. No ifs, ands or buts. But if my dear wife happened to be named George, he would receive nothing. This is not to say that a gay man who died without a will would be anything but an idiot. However, in our society, idiots are punished UNEQUALLY by the LEGAL system based solely on the fact that some idiots like idiottesses and other idiots like idiots.

We are not talking about isolated incidences here. And note that I am not talking about social acceptance or forcing people to change their religiously held opposition to gays. I am simply talking about stopping the unequal application of the laws. There are over 1,000 federal laws that have an impact on citizenry based on their marriage status.

Check out the site below. It is the GAO‚ÄövÑv¥s report of the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act (also known as the Let‚ÄövÑv¥s All Unconstitutionally* Pander to the Bigot Vote Act)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=og97016.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

I am not sure how to make this a hotlink, but you can always cut and paste.

<* Footnote The DOMA openly violates the ‚ÄövÑv full faith and credit‚ÄövÑvp clause of the constitution and everybody in congress who voted for it knew it would not survive the first court challenge ‚ÄövÑv¨ witness the right-wing fervor at opposing legalization of marriage in any state ‚ÄövÑv¨ but boy did it make the Bubbas happy>

This summary only hits the federal laws and does not include the myriad of state laws.
Granted, some of these rights given to married couples are rather ridiculous and silly ‚ÄövÑv¨ if my wife should keel over in the good state of Maryland, I could bury her in the backyard and never even bother to inform the police or county coroner that she had died.

For those of you who don‚ÄövÑv¥t want to read a GAO document, here‚ÄövÑv¥s a quick list:
¬¨‚àë Assumption of Spouse‚ÄövÑv¥s Pension
· Automatic Inheritance
· Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
· Bereavement Leave
· Burial Determination
· Child Custody
¬¨‚àë Crime Victim‚ÄövÑv¥s Recovery Benefits
· Divorce Protections
· Domestic Violence Protection
¬¨‚àë Exemption from Property Tax on Partner‚ÄövÑv¥s Death
· Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
· Insurance Breaks
· Joint Adoption and Foster Care
· Joint Bankruptcy
· Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
· Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
· Certain Property Rights
· Reduced Rate Memberships
· Sick Leave to Care for Partner
¬¨‚àë Visitation of Partner‚ÄövÑv¥s Children
· Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
· Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
Justice demands that we grant these benefits to gay couples. We don‚ÄövÑv¥t have to call it marriage. I am not particularly worried about the semantics of language ‚ÄövÑv¨ call it a secular contract if you wish. Gays certainly can‚ÄövÑv¥t force Baptists to acknowledge the moral force of their marriages, and shouldn‚ÄövÑv¥t be able to. On the other hand, a number of other denominations are willing to give a religious blessing to gay unions. Leave the definition of holy marriage to the churches. But the government should not play favorites between citizens.

BIOLOGY

The Maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s essay that denies the biological basis of homosexuality refuses to recognize the established influence of genetics in determining homosexuality (at least for men ‚ÄövÑv¨ as I understand it, lesbianism is generally considered to be more of a choice).

I wish to make a few points about the biology issue.

1) The Maximum Leader is simply wrong. There is little disagreement among researchers about the established influence of genetics in determining homosexual orientation - at least for men ‚ÄövÑv¨ as I understand it, lesbianism is generally considered to be more of a choice. I think Big Hominid does a nice job taking the Maximum Leader to the woodshed at the Big hominid blogspot so I won‚ÄövÑv¥t belabor this point again.

2) So what? Ignore the evidence for a moment and assume that homosexuality is a choice. Does the fact that an action between two consenting adults that has no victims result in thousands of instances of governmental discrimination? Would the Maximum Leader deny me the right to take over a lease because of my aforementioned youthful indiscretion?

3) The Maximum Leader, if he is basing his support of discrimination on the grounds that homosexuality is a choice, should be prepared to change his position if the scientific community does demonstrate the biological origin of orientation. He does not seem prepared to do so. If he is prepared to change in the face of evidence that undermine his grounds, (I like that phrase!) I would direct his attention to Big Hominid‚ÄövÑv¥s Blog.

4) Folks who advocate the ‚ÄövÑv it‚ÄövÑv¥s a sinful choice‚ÄövÑvp position never address the obvious consequence of their stand. Did they consciously choose to be heterosexual? I know I never made a choice. Chicks are neat ‚ÄövÑv¨ all soft and curvy and whatnot. Now, I will acknowledge that society can have a direct influence on the particular focus of our attraction ‚ÄövÑv¨ the Uber-minister-of-agriculture-frau is slim and blonde. But I am attracted to women in many different shapes, sizes, and colors. I can certainly appreciate the Maximum Leader‚ÄövÑv¥s taste in Hewitt and Hayek. Society has led me to a narrow attraction, but biology makes me willing to consider all sorts of women. I have never seen a man and said to myself, ‚ÄövÑv self, you could use some of that.‚ÄövÑvp Now I can certainly appreciate other men aesthetically ‚ÄövÑv¨ the Maximum Leader, for instance, is a good lookin‚ÄövÑv¥ fella. But there is no attraction there. My brain chemistry, not my intellect, seems to have made the underlying choice of my attraction.

CONCLUSION

The high esteem in which I hold the Maximum Leader heightens my disappointment with this essay. It fails to acknowledge the realities of discrimination, it fails to rationally persuade (partly because it does not attempt to use reason), and parts of the argument are based on erroneous assumptions.
And no, Big Hominid, I am not risking being dragged out and shot. I was already going to be first against the wall when the Revolution comes.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will invite his Minister of Agriculture to join up on the ole blog site. I invited him once before and he declined; but now the gauntlet has been thrown down. It is likely that I will start a response to the Hominid and his readers comments on gay marriage tonight if the Elder Villainette finishes her soccer game at a decent hour.

Carry on.

I know whom I want to hear from: YOUR MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE! Get his ass online! He’s obviously got an opinion if he’s willing to risk being dragged out and shot for accusing the Maximum Leader of homophobia! Any chance he might weigh in?

Night, all.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has just read over a response by a reader to the Big Hominid’s response to my post on Gay Marriage. Well, that is a confusing turn of links isn’t it? Anyway, I will redouble my efforts to post something worthwhile quickly. Read it my minions! Read it and write me or the Big Hominid (aka: Poet Laureate) all about your views…

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has read over his Poet Laureate’s response to my post on Gay Marriage. I hope to formulate and post a response over the next few days.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has decided to blog a little today while Mrs. Villain and the Villainettes are taking a little nap.

First on the hit parade today is a general coment on those listless Teutons. If they would only a little harder they might start realizing that THE FRENCH have taken their role as a leader of Europe. Of course, both the German government and the French government are wrongheaded about so many things. Maybe if Germans would work 40 hours a week they might once again strike fear into the hearts of the French. Hell, the might even realize they could take back Alsace and Lorraine without the French even noticing‚ÄövѬ

Did I read this correctly? Diving onto asphalt au naturel? Ouch, that‚ÄövÑv¥s gotta hurt. (Psst! Did you catch the byline on that link?)

This item off the AP news wire elicits a number of reactions from the Maximum Leader. First reaction, I don‚ÄövÑv¥t see why the firing squad should be eliminated as a possible method of execution. If you make sure the members of the firing squad are marksmen, and they are using high calibre rifles; then the firing squad is a perfectly legitimate method of execution. If I am not mistaken, not every marksman on the firing squad gets a live round. It is my understanding that they only give out one live round the rest are blanks. That way the odds are the YOU (as a member of the squad) did not actually execute the convict.
Second reaction, a number of people (I‚ÄövÑv¥m sure) believe that the firing squad is barbaric. Why? It is no less barbaric than having the convict wait (while strapped down to the gurney) and watch the anesthesia being injected into him, then slowly loosing consciousness knowing full well the poison is following right along‚ÄövѬ
Third reaction, who knew the Mormon Church required that blood be shed for justice to be done to a murderer? I certainly didn‚ÄövÑv¥t. I don‚ÄövÑv¥t know any theological basis for this belief, but I like it.
Fourth reaction, I am distressed at the perception (reality?) that the Mormon Church rules the state government of Utah. I haven‚ÄövÑv¥t heard of the state of Massachusetts getting approval (okay, at least a written statement) from the Congregationalists or Catholics before taking a decision on a matter of policy. If members of the Utah legislature were worried about the theological implications of eliminating the firing squad couldn‚ÄövÑv¥t they have asked their minister themselves? Why involve the state in it? This really does distress me. (Of course, it could just be the way the AP reported the story in their typical hate-all-religions-unless-we-can-mock-them way.

Another example of moderate Islam? (Thanks to Opinion Journal for the link.) I know that people keep saying that there are plenty of muslims that disavow this type of ranting, but where are they? I haven‚ÄövÑv¥t heard of any outside of the US/Europe. And frankly, if they live in the US or Europe they don‚ÄövÑv¥t seem to have much ‚ÄövÑv street cred‚ÄövÑvp in predominantly muslim nations.

And finally, Abbas has resigned as Palestinian Prime Minister. We always knew that Yasser was continuing to pull all the strings and hold all the cards. Once again, we see that the Palestinians have no desire for peace with Israel. Of course it is all a blame game for the Palestinians. To wit:

According to Abu Amr and other legislators, Abbas said he regretted the failure of his government, but blamed the United States and Israel for not fulfilling their obligations in the peace process. He said Israel did little to improve the daily living conditions of Palestinians by lifting roadblocks and checkpoints and made no serious efforts to dismantle outposts and small settlements as demanded by the road map. He blamed the United States for not exerting enough pressure on Israel to meet those obligations.

How hard has Abbas been trying to crack down on Hammas or the other terrorist organizations in the Palestinian areas? Not very. And I will not blame Israel for not ending roadblocks and checkpoints. Those checkpoints save lives. And protecting its citizens is the foremost responsibility of the state.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minons. Your Maximum Leader wonders if this is going to be posted. He has tried to blog all morning, but to no avail. Blogger seems to be experiencing some sort of problem. I finally logged in, but I still can’t see any Blogger powered blogs… Perhaps time to move to Moveable Type?

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has just read of Mr. Depp’s non-retraction, retraction. Translation of Johnny’s ersatz retraction: “Waaaa. My silly comments might hurt opening day of Once Upon a Time in Mexico. I must retract them without really denying what I said. Waaaa.”

Of course, your Maximum Leader, and Mrs. Villain will likely see this movie regardless of Johnny’s comments on the US. Mrs. Villain thinks he is hot, and your Maximum Leader is not fully recovered from a Salma Hayek crush….

Carry on.

Greetings again loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is going to, in true blog fashion, just do some comments on different stories around the net.

I am very disappointed in reading this story about how Germans are nostalgic for the old Communist DDR. I am especially distressed by the quotations from Katarina Witt. I would have hoped that after so many years in the west she would have come around to see the oppresive nature of the DDR. But, since she was one of their shining stars, and she was not hounded by the secret police, and she was the receipient of the full benefits of being a good little member of the party; I can see why her memories of the DDR are “good.” However, were I one of her corporate sponsors, I would be a bit distressed that she is still a communist.

I forget how I navigated over to his site, but I started to read Daniel Drezner’s site today. I really like what I read. So much I added him to my links.

As I do every day, I went over to the Poet Laureate’s site and read his bloggings of the day. I know he doesn’t like to engage in cross-blog debates or discussions, but I will at least as this. Why does the strong debate on a liberal leaning blog site surprise him? Politics summons up the blood and causes people to siffen the sinews. He notes that reading this was very eye opening. I would like to know in what way it opened his eyes. Neither of the US political parties are particularly monolithic in terms of ideology. Democrats and Republicans run the gamut of political views. It is my firm belief that people choose their political affiliation (if they choose one at all) mainly on the basis of which party matches more of their beliefs than the other. I think news reporting tends to show more internal fighting of the Republicans. But, thanks to the blogosphere we now see these debates happen all over the political spectrum.

I read Steven Den Beste’s blog very frequently. I appreciate his thoughtfulness and thoroughness when writing. And his most recent post about the State Department is a very good one overall. But I suppose I am going to engage in some quibbling with a little bit of what he writes. He writes:
The permanent bureaucracy is supposed to work for elected officials, who in turn work for the people of the nation. In our sysem, the government leads us and serves us, but does not rule us. It is supposed to be reactive to our will.
I suppose I will engage in some semantic argument here. (Even when I was dismissive towards changing semantics in my big post on homosexual marriage.) I think we elect government officials to rule us - until the next election. Then we decide to switch rulers, or retain the ones we have. We, as a people in the US, do not exercise direct control over our government on a daily basis. (Unless you live in California, then you get to recall your governors and replace them.) We elect people to rule over us. I feel a little churlish taking issue with one phrase in an otherwise outstanding post. Read it.

Speaking of the California recall… I watched some of the debate between the major non-Ah-nold candidates. It was really interesting to watch. I came away with a very favorable opinion of Tom McClintock. He was strong, direct, and didn’t pander. I was, as much as I hate to admit it, impressed with Arianna Huffington’s fiestyness. I also liked the way she really strong-armed Cruz Bustamante. She went after him on everything. And, as I was watching I thought to myself, “Cruz must be very unhappy that Ah-nold isn’t there. If Ah-nold was there, Arianna would be going after him with a vengance.” Then, this morning I either read (or heard on TV) Tim Russert saying that Arianna might be inadvertently helping Ah-nold by attacking Bustamante. If she could cause some of his support to go to her or to the Green Party - Ar-nold could become the front-runner again. Interesting.

More on the recall… If you haven’t read Arnold Steinberg’s article on NRO about Governor Davis and how he might survive the recall. The candidates have to make sure they campaign against Davis just as much as they do against each other. That isn’t going to be easy.

Well, enough blogging. I now go to sit in front of my widescreen TV and watch the NFL.

Carry on.